i sent this as a reply
Sara
Please find for your kind attention a question/submission for the honourable member K J ANDERSON
Sir
The determination AA 187/10 member Campbell 26 April 2010 states in parg 25
“Further there is no evidence that Mr. Evans-McLeod’s resignation resulted from any inappropriate or unlawful action on Telecom’s part or by anybody else.”
FOR CLARITY I WILL RESTATE MY CASE
This coming August the 20th it will be 2 years since “my resignation” from Telecom , over this time I approached the Privacy Commission for all my details, notes, meeting notes conversation notes memo etc
In perusing said details I discovered clear and substantiated evidence of fraud with in my disciplinary procedures
This took the form of a false accusation with regard to two purported letters of complaint from two disgruntled customers, one of these letters in fact did not exist and has never existed, finally admitted to by Telecom to the Privacy Commissioner after many months of wrangling for a copy of said document, I was repeatly however held to account during the disciplinary procedure over this purported complaint .
The sequence of events that followed my “resignation” preclude me for seeking a resolution with the Employment Relation Authority as you have in no uncertain terms in your latest judgement, informed me of same, as I am no longer in a employment relationship with Telecom, the Authority no longer has jurisdiction
Simply put “jurisdiction” comes down to a matter of timing with respect to the process coupled with telecom failing to show “good faith” during mediation and an adroit piece of manipulation
Telecom committed an act of fraud which is an unlawful action in a predetermined premeditated course of action to facilitate getting me to mediation where the confidentiality of the process cloaked their actions to exit me from the company, they not only managed to hoodwink me but the authority member as well
It also highlights a certain degree of contempt for both the ERA and the mediation process where the withholding of information allowed them to manipulate the process to their own ends, Michelle Young Call Centre manager who was present at the hearing failed in her duty of care in informing Ms Campbell that said act of fraud had been committed ,so much for the “good faith” tenet where honesty and integrity are required ,they made fools and a mockery of us all
Fraud against me is separate issue in its self. However it has some relevance to the employment matters at hand
If the disciplinary procedure was “tainted” by fraud some questions arise
.
1. Does this act of fraud proven with details supplied with my submission , negate any and all effects of the mediation and events that flowed from it , if it doesn’t please show me the precedence in law that allows it
2. If it does so, with whom and how do I seek recourse
3. Who holds Telecom to account for this illegal act
4. Does the ERA once presented with the proof act for me
I wish to state for the record that I’m am not “pursuing a vexatious and misguided campaign of litigation against Telecom”
I am a simple layman with few or no resources, learning by my mistakes as I progress, who by representing myself, have saved myself from the corporations usual tactic of using their deep pockets to beat me into submission.
I as yourselves have relied on their honesty integrity and transparency but unfortunately have found them badly wanting, I simply wish to hold them accountable for their inappropriate or unlawful action
For in committing said fraud they have defamed my reputation of honesty and integrity build up over 39. years 3months of service I will not waver in my resolve to clear my name
These inappropriate or unlawful actions effect the integrity honesty and transparency of the whole process and disregard of same by one or both parties erodes the principles of the acts of law that support the mediation and era process, failure to address these issues makes the whole thing a farce,
I have found the proof of an unlawful act and I have provided proof verified in documents from the privacy commission ,with copies provided in my submission
It is my expectation that the ERA AND/OR THE DOL will act according to the law
Those invested in the process are as follows
Bridget Dalzell: national manager : who had oversight of the process
Michelle Young: Call Centre Manager who had oversight of Shaun Hoult
Shaun Hoult: My team manager and instigator of alleged letter
Iain Galloway :HR representative on Hamilton Site .who was involved in disciplinary meetings, sometimes as note taker
Hannah Sullivan: national HR representative who had oversight of process
They are all culpable, as all where invested in my disciplinary procedure, all failed in their due diligence in requiring oversight of said letter
all failed to recognise the disconnect of an intellectually handicap girl, being able to write a letter of complaint using the words “patronising and condescending” her disability precludes her from understanding the concept let alone voicing it or for that matter spelling the words
Any attempt by any party to deny knowledge of same would beggar belief as their positions within the company require a least a modicum of intelligence
My apologies for presenting yourself with such a conundrum to resolve, however please remember it was not of my making
Warm regards
Paul Evans-McLeod
No comments:
Post a Comment